LOTTIE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] While leading police on a dangerous high-speed chase, Jesse Lottie Jr. blew through a stop sign and slammed into another vehicle, killing its two occupants; he then ran from the crash scene. Lottie was charged with and convicted of resisting law enforcement and leaving the scene of an accident. Lottie now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the evening of December 2, 2020, Mishawaka Police Department officers Glenn Hixenbaugh and Clayton Pendl were among those who responded to a domestic violence call at the Parkview Terrace Apartments in Mishawaka, Indiana. Officer Hixenbaugh arrived on scene first, shortly before 8:00 p.m., and saw “a male black in black clothing” in front of “building 523.” Tr. Vol. II at 58. The individual was later identified as Jalen Wheeler, who had been involved in the domestic disturbance giving rise to the call. As Officer Hixenbaugh started walking toward Wheeler, he “called out ‘Police. Stop.’ And that individual immediately began running.” Id. at 59. Officer Hixenbaugh pursued Wheeler on foot and let other responding officers know that “a male black was running from the scene.” Id. at 69. Officer Hixenbaugh lost Wheeler in an alley.

[4] Officer Pendl saw a man matching the description of Wheeler get into the passenger side of a Pontiac sedan. Officer Pendl “went to exit [his] vehicle to do a traffic stop; but then [the Pontiac] started to drive away; so then [he] followed” it, activating his emergency lights and sirens and pursuing the Pontiac. Tr. Vol. II at 70. The Pontiac stopped for neither Officer Pendl nor stop signs, until it collided with a Chevrolet sedan in an intersection. Two men immediately exited the Pontiac and ran from the scene; a woman remained in the vehicle. The crash caused the two occupants of the Chevrolet to be ejected from the vehicle, and they died from their injuries.

[5] Shortly after the wreck, surveillance video from a nearby residence showed two men on foot meet up and then walk together. One of the men in the video appeared to be Lottie.

[6] While investigating the crash, officers learned the Pontiac was registered to Lottie's sister. When searching the Pontiac, officers discovered a cell phone belonging to Lottie in the driver's-side floorboard. In addition to Lottie's cell phone, a red casino card with Lottie's name on it was found in the car, and Lottie's right thumbprint was found on the rearview mirror. Lottie's high school diploma was in the Pontiac's trunk. Officers also discovered a handgun on the front passenger floorboard. DNA found on the gun's trigger had “very strong support” that it was Lottie's. Tr. Vol. III at 161–62, 167.

[7] While officers were still at the crash site, Lottie and his sister came to the scene.¹ Law enforcement officers interviewed Lottie, and he consented to a search of his cell phone. Cache location data ² from Lottie's cell phone revealed that it was at the Parkview Terrace Apartments shortly before it travelled to the site of the crash.

[8] The State charged Lottie with two counts of resisting law enforcement as Level 3 felonies,³ two counts of leaving the scene of an accident as Level 4 felonies,⁴ and one count of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor ⁵ . A jury found Lottie guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Lottie to 48 years of incarceration, with 4 of those years suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Lottie's Convictions for Resisting Law Enforcement and Leaving the Scene of an Accident

[9] Lottie argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions for resisting law enforcement and leaving the scene of an accident.⁶ Our Supreme Court has explained our standard of review for such a claim as follows:

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018). A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if “there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024).

Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024).

[10] To convict Lottie of resisting law enforcement as a Level 3 felony under Indiana Code section 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3) and (c)(3), the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lottie knowingly or intentionally fled “from a law enforcement officer after the officer ha[d], by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop” and in doing so, Lottie operated “a vehicle in a manner that cause[d] the death or catastrophic injury of another person.” To convict Lottie of leaving the scene of an accident as a Level 4 felony under Indiana Code section 9-26-1-1.1(a)(3) and (b)(3) the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lottie knowingly or intentionally failed to provide reasonable assistance to the occupants of the Chevrolet and failed to immediately give notice of the accident to law enforcement or 911, and that the collision resulted in the death or catastrophic injury to at least one of the occupants of the Chevrolet.

[11] On appeal, Lottie argues only that he was not the driver of the Pontiac at the time of the wreck. Identity can be established by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244–45; Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that a man matching Wheeler's description entered the passenger side of the Pontiac; two men fled from the Pontiac after the fatal wreck; surveillance footage from a residence near the crash scene captured a man resembling Lottie shortly after the wreck; Lottie's cell phone was found in the driver's side floorboard of the Pontiac and its location data showed it was in the same location as the Pontiac before, during, and after the collision; Lottie had personal items in the Pontiac; Lottie's DNA and fingerprints were found on the handgun and the Pontiac's rearview mirror; and the Pontiac was registered to Lottie's sister. The jury could have reasonably inferred from this evidence that Lottie was the person driving the Pontiac when it did not stop for Officer Pendl's emergency lights and sirens, Lottie was the person driving the Pontiac when it crashed into the Chevrolet, and Lottie was one of the two men who exited the Pontiac and fled the scene after the wreck. We therefore cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support Lottie's convictions for resisting law enforcement and leaving the scene of an accident, so we affirm those convictions.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is not clear from the record why Lottie and his sister went to the scene of the crash.

2.   Cache location data includes data regarding a phone's coordinates, the dates and times the phone was at those coordinates, and other similar types of data.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), (c)(3).

4.   I.C. § 9-26-1-1.1(a)(3), (b)(3).

5.   I.C. § 35-47-2-1.

6.   Lottie does not challenge his conviction for carrying a handgun without a license.

Felix, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.